Ethical Guidelines

Ethical Guidelines to Journal of Technical Education Science in Publication Process

Preface

The Journal of Technical Education Science publishes research results from various fields of engineering and technology. The journal's editorial board is responsible for establishing and regularly updating guidelines for the selection and acceptance of manuscripts for publication in the journal. These guidelines are developed based on the scope of the journal, the editorial board's perspective on the standards of academic quality, and the presentation of scientific work.

The peer-review process for manuscripts to be considered professional must receive recognition from both experts in the field and the broader society. A mandatory ethical standard must be applied at every stage of the review process, concerning authors, reviewers, the editorial board, and in alignment with the general ethical standards of the profession and society. Such an ethical standard benefits greatly in terms of awareness for individuals within the profession and for society as a whole because it prevents actions that serve the narrow interests of individuals involved in the review process.

The journal's editorial board provides ethical guidelines for those involved in the publication of manuscripts in the journal, specifically editors, authors, and reviewers. These guidelines are not meant to immediately address unethical behavior of the entities involved in the review process but to persuade them to adhere to strict ethical standards, which are important in the review process. Some crucial steps in the review process require defining ethical standards to the attention of all concerned

We believe that most of the guidelines presented here have been well understood and subscribed to by the majority of experienced researchers. However, they may be of significant help to those entering the research field for the first time. We also hope that successful scientists may consider what additional ethical standards need to be added to the review process, which are deemed important.

Ethical Obligations of the Journal

A. Ethical Obligations of Authors: Authors are required to adhere to the ethical standards outlined below. If violated, the editor may temporarily suspend the review of the manuscript or retract a published article.

1. The primary responsibility of the author is to present the research work accurately and comprehensively, without any deception in data collection or usage, and in providing objective discussions regarding the research's significance. Data is defined as information collected or used to draw research conclusions. The report and data collected during the research process must be specific and detailed, accompanied by citations to published sources to enable trained experts to verify experimental observations by replicating them.
2. Authors should be aware that journal space is limited, and journals incur significant storage costs. Therefore, authors should responsibly present concise and focused manuscripts within the allowed page limit (10 pages). Supporting Information, lengthy and less relevant, can be provided as supplementary materials and stored in accessible locations outside the journal.
3. When requested, authors should do their best to provide data, methods, and samples that are not available elsewhere, such as new materials, bacterial strains, antibodies, etc., to other researchers, with appropriate transfer agreements to limit the scope of materials usage, safeguarding the author's legal rights. Authors are encouraged to store their data in a public database if possible.
4. Authors should cite influential works that are related to the nature of the current research, aiding readers in quickly accessing previous studies to understand the foundation for the current investigation. Authors should avoid citing the unrelated publications in their research. For issues discussed in their research, authors must responsibly find and cite original works, providing full references. For other important source materials used in the manuscript, authors are required to correctly cite the source, even if it is provided by someone other than the author of that materials.
5. The potential hazardous properties of chemicals, equipment, or processes used in the study, with high inherent risks, should be clearly identified in the manuscript along with appropriate warnings. Authors should inform the editor if their manuscript contains surveys based on the author's understanding to provide knowledge, products, or technology to readers that may not be safe if applied directly by non-experts, potentially posing health risks to themselves or the community, causing harm to crops, animals, or negatively impacting the physical environment.
6. Authors should avoid fragmenting research results to publish multiple papers. A scientist who has conducted in-depth research on a system or a group of related systems should organize the publication of research results so that each publication provides complete information about a specific aspect of the overall research project. Fragmentation leads to excessive consumption of journal space and complicates the process of accessing literature. Readers will find it more convenient if publications related to the same research are published in the same journal or a few journals.
7. When submitting a manuscript to a journal, authors should inform the editor about other manuscripts (if any) by the same author that the journal is processing or publishing. Authors should provide basic information about those manuscripts (title, authors, abstracts) and the relationship of those manuscripts to the newly submitted manuscript.
8. Authors are not allowed to submit almost identical research content to different journals for publication. Only if the author withdraws the paper or the paper is rejected for publication in one journal can it be submitted to another journal.

9. Authors are encouraged to suggest suitable reviewers when submitting a manuscript. However, authors should not recommend reviewers with whom they have an actual, perceived, or potential conflict of interest. Furthermore, authors should not propose reviewers with personal or professional relationships that could potentially affect the review process.
10. Authors should identify the sources of citations for the information provided in the manuscript unless the information is common knowledge. Private information, such as from conversations, letters, or discussions with third parties, should not be used or disclosed in the manuscript without their permission. Information collected during the process of providing security services, such as manuscript reviews or research funding proposals, should also be handled similarly.
11. Theoretical and experimental research may sometimes fiercely criticize each other. Theoretical scientists may criticize experimental papers and vice versa, but the papers can still be accepted for publication. However, no matter how intense the professional criticism, authors and reviewers should not engage in personal criticism of each other.
12. Co-authors of a paper should be individuals who have made significant scientific contributions to that paper. They have a responsibility to account for the research results. Co-authors should not be individuals listed merely for the sake of it without any substantial contribution. Authors should acknowledge the significant contributions of technical staff and data analysts. Other contributions should be mentioned in footnotes or the "Acknowledgments" section. The support of management levels in conducting surveys that do not meet the criteria to become co-authors (it is more appropriate to acknowledge their significant administrative support for the paper). Deceased individuals who meet the criteria for co-authors (having made significant scientific contributions) should also be included in the list of authors with a note stating the date of death. Fake names should not be listed in the authors' list. Authors must send the manuscript to all co-authors, and co-authors must confirm their agreement to be the authors of the paper.
13. Corresponding authors should disclose to the editor and readers any conflicts of interest of the authors (existing or potential) related to the publication of the manuscript at the time of submission to the journal. All authors must disclose: (1) the sources of funding for the research reported, (2) whether they have received financial support from companies or commercial organizations with the obligation to provide research results beneficial to those companies or organizations, (3) relationships with partners (within 3 years) who have financial interests or other benefits in the results of the manuscript. Financial interests of partners may include consulting fees, certification as an expert, receipt of bonuses, patents. Partners here can be individuals or organizations. Financial interests will be reflected in the published paper. Authors must also disclose non-financial interests that they know may affect the review and publication process.
14. Plagiarism is not acceptable in the Journal of Technical Education Science. Plagiarism is understood as taking ideas, processes, results, or words of others without clear acknowledgment that they belong to someone else and not to oneself. Our journal will check for plagiarism using the iThenticate tool with an acceptance threshold of 20%, as specified in Article 8, Decision No. 1047 of Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education. Authors should not engage in plagiarism - copying verbatim or nearly verbatim text or passages from the work of others. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism (submitting a manuscript that has been published elsewhere to our journal). Specifically, the submitted manuscript should not overlap too much with the author's previous publications or research results without acknowledging the source. If one or two sentences identical to a previous publication by the author appear in the current manuscript, the current manuscript is considered to be self-plagiarism. Quoted sentences from the author's previous publication must be enclosed in double quotation marks (""). If the current manuscript contains verbatim or nearly verbatim sections or paragraphs from the author's previous work without proper attribution, it cannot be accepted.
15. The Journal of Technical Education Science has mandatory ethical standards for experimental studies involving biological samples taken from animals or humans. Such studies, when submitted to our journal, must provide additional permits from local authorities to ensure humane treatment of animals and protection of human rights. For studies involving humans, authors must provide evidence confirming that research samples were collected with the consent of the sample donors or with the permission of the authorities (licensing authority). Authors are required to declare the registration number of the licensing authority for conducting research on animals and humans in the "Materials and Methods" section of the manuscript.
16. Figures in the manuscript should not be altered to distort data (data beautification) and must accurately reflect the collected data. The images presented in the manuscript need to be accurately and truthfully described in terms of how they were created.

B. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers:

1. Evaluating a manuscript is a critical step in the publishing process, and it should be carried out scientifically. Every scientist is encouraged to participate in the publication process, including reviewing and submitting papers. Therefore, there is a responsibility to provide fair assessments of papers submitted by other authors.
2. If you are selected as a peer reviewer, please do not decline the invitation. However, if you feel that you do not have the necessary expertise to evaluate the research presented in the manuscript, you should promptly return it to the editor.
3. Peer reviewers (assessing quality or scoring the manuscript) should provide objective opinions about the quality of the manuscript and supporting information, including experimental and theoretical data, presentation, and explanation. The assessment should be based on rigorous academic standards. Peer reviewers should respect the author's independent thinking and perspective on the issues presented in the manuscript.
4. If a peer reviewer finds that the manuscript's research content is similar to papers they have published or are currently publishing, they should consider any conflicts of interest. If there is a suspicion of a conflict of interest, the peer reviewer should return the manuscript to the editorial board and inform them of the potential conflict of interest between the reviewer and the authors to avoid biased or unfair evaluations.
5. Peer reviewers should not evaluate a manuscript when they have a personal or professional relationship with the authors. Such relationships may affect the objectivity of the review process.
6. Peer reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process to ensure impartial discussions and evaluations of the scientific content of the manuscript. Even if a manuscript is accepted or rejected for publication, peer reviewers should keep the process confidential from the time they receive the manuscript for review until the editorial board makes the final decision. Specific guidelines include:
1. Peer reviewers should prioritize the confidentiality of the manuscript and associated data, such as the evaluations by other reviewers, reports by other reviewers, authors' revised manuscripts, and other relevant information. Peer reviewers should not disclose or discuss these contents with any organization or individual.
2. For educational purposes, peer reviewers are allowed to use their trainees to review manuscripts on their behalf. These trainees can be graduate or postgraduate students. In such cases, the peer reviewer should clearly communicate to their trainees the need for confidentiality during the review process. They should also review and approve the evaluation reports of their trainees before submitting them to the editor. Peer reviewers should inform the editor of the identities of their trainees who assisted in the review.
3. Peer reviewers may publicly disclose that they are currently reviewing for a particular journal but should not reveal that they are reviewing a specific manuscript.
4. In exceptional cases, peer reviewers may want to reveal their identities to the authors for legitimate scientific reasons. In this case, the peer reviewer must seek the editor's approval. The editor has the right to accept or reject this request from the peer reviewer, with a reasonable explanation if rejected.
7. Peer reviewers should provide comprehensive explanations and citations when offering comments on the manuscript, allowing the editor and authors to understand the basis of these comments. Any critique of an observation, deduction, or point that has been previously published should be accompanied by relevant citations. Comments or responses from peer reviewers that lack accompanying citations will be of limited value and should be avoided.
8. Peer reviewers should be vigilant and raise concerns if authors do not adequately cite related research by other scientists. Peer reviewers should note that their concerns about a manuscript's failure to cite or fully cite related research published by the reviewers themselves may be misconstrued as serving their own interests. Therefore, peer reviewers should avoid making such complaints.
9. Peer reviewers should complete the manuscript review and submit their evaluations to the editor within the specified timeframe. If a peer reviewer receives a manuscript during a particularly busy period and cannot review it within the given timeline, they should either promptly return it to the editor or inform the editor that they cannot meet the deadline and suggest an appropriate extension.
10. Peer reviewers should not use or disclose any information, arguments, or interpretations found in the manuscript under review without the author's consent.
11. While reviewing a manuscript, peer reviewers may sometimes provide strong, even harsh criticisms. Such strong criticisms may be appropriate and can still be included in published papers. However, peer reviewers should refrain from personally criticizing or attacking the authors.
12. Peer reviewers should alert the editor to any concerns related to the manuscript's results if it provides knowledge, products, or technologies that may be unsafe for readers who lack sufficient expertise to directly apply them. Such concerns may be harmful to individuals, communities, impact crops, livestock, or have adverse effects on the physical environment.

C. Ethical Obligations Journal Editors:

1. Editors should objectively consider all manuscripts submitted to the journal, evaluating each manuscript based on its merit, without regard to the author's race, religion, nationality, gender, research experience, or affiliations. However, editors may consider the relationship between the current manuscript and other submissions by the same author to the journal.
2. Editors should handle manuscripts submitted to the journal with due speed.
3. Editors are solely responsible for accepting or rejecting a manuscript submitted to the journal. Editors should exercise caution when making their decisions and aim to provide a well-founded decision by considering evaluations from at least two peer reviewers. Because peer reviewers are experts in the subject matter of the manuscript, their evaluations are typically of high quality and reliability. However, manuscripts may be rejected without external reviews if the editor finds them unsuitable for the journal. Reasons for rejection could include that the manuscript falls outside the scope of the journal, lacks broad interest for readers, fails to provide sufficient scientific content, contains unacceptable English or Vietnamese language, or other valid grounds.
4. When making their decision and providing evaluations of a manuscript's research results, editors should publicly discuss the final decision with the editorial board, rather than using the anonymous opinions of peer reviewers to reach a decision. Editors should not make decisions based solely on confidential peer review comments without disclosing their identity.
5. The editorial board should not disclose information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone except for the two peer reviewers. However, an editor who is assigned to handle other submitted papers may disclose relevant information to an author of a related submission if such a relationship is identified, to address the potential conflict of interest between the authors of these related papers.
6. Editors should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
7. An editor should delegate handling of a submitted manuscript if there is a conflict of interest arising from their own research or from relationships with authors, contributors, or other entities connected to the manuscript.
8. Editors should not use or exploit any information, arguments, or interpretations found in a manuscript submitted to the journal for their own research unless they have the author's explicit consent. However, if an editor's research related to a submitted manuscript results in a conflict of interest, they should arrange for another qualified person to handle the manuscript. In some cases, editors may inform the author of their research plan in the related field.
9. If an editor can provide persuasive evidence that the main content or main conclusion of a journal article contains an error, the editor should encourage the author to publish a correction or erratum of their own accord.
10. Authors may request not to invite specific individuals to review their manuscript. However, it is at the discretion of the editor whether to extend an invitation, considering the importance of their expertise in providing a fair review. This is especially relevant in cases where the manuscript presents results that challenge or contradict the reviewer's prior research.